Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 13

TFA reminder, June 26
Pinging all involved in the FAR and TFAR for extra eyes on TFA day. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll try to take as much of a look as possible, but I'll be asleep or at church for most of the first half of the run. Hog Farm Talk 16:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I will be watching all except for two hours towards the end of the run, and when I try to sleep :) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Both articles have been on my watch-list for a long time. I'll definitely be keeping an eye out tomorrow whenever I'm online. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Will keep an eye on this when I can today. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Won't be involved as I'm recovering from surgery but I'll respond to pings if urgent help or my opinion is needed. Enjoy your weekend everyone and be proud of the formidable work done by all of you to take this article back to FA quality and to curate its nomination for TFA. The work we do not only to cover notable topics well but to recognize and maintain quality articles is something you should congratulate yourself in the mirror for regularly. This is important work that y'all are doing and you should feel proud of your contributions. I am proud of you all :) — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 20:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Get well soon, and thanks for the kind words. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm here (thanks for the ping, I'd lost track of the date), but not feeling great so will be in & out and not up to any great long discussions. Victoria (tk) 23:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 35 minutes in, and three changes have been made. I've picked from 16:57, 25 June 2022 to restore to, though I was tempted to pick one further back and closer to the FAR. Not sure if this is the right version to go back to, but the work from  hasn't diverged too much from the FAR. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Adding relevant links: Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1 April 2022
 * including five talk archives at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1 from December 2021
 * TFA blurb Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests/J. K. Rowling April 2022
 * Lead RFC Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 11 January 2022
 * AN Administrators%27 noticeboard June 2022
 * Adding permadiffs:
 * AN discussion
 * BLPN discussion
 * Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Good luck. If my clearing of POTD/Unused was a bit controversial, this could be a powder keg. But, y'know, I can respect all the hard work you put in as editors without needing to respect the article's subject that much (her twitter is one of the biggest internet horrorshows at the moment, and not in the Nadsat meaning of "horrorshow". It's about 90% attacks on trans people, especially given she's pinned a bunch of her favourite attacks.) I'm a bit concerned for all of you (I don't want to see any of you hurt if this blows up) but, well, in the end, there's never going to be a good time to run it anymore, so, y'know, good luck. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 23:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I am on a kinda Wiki break, plus currently I have Covid; not too bad but resting mostly and avoiding. ~ BOD ~ TALK 18:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Get well soon ! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Phew! That was busy. Thanks everyone, above all SG. I looked in a few times, but everything seemed covered. This is the cumulative diff for the day. It looks ok to me - a few more pesky Americanisms hunted down - but might be worth a check by others. Johnbod (talk) 01:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Amazing work everyone. I've kept half an eye over here, but it's gone well. Thanks to Sandy for her special brand of magic on the talk pages and keeping all the threads together and focused. Big pats on backs all around. Victoria (tk) 01:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

TFA post-mortem
At 99,066, barely missed Today's featured article/Most viewed. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Without Telegraph, Sky News probably would have hit Most Viewed. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that additional protection was not needed, but suggest that having arb sanctions in place was a big help wrt TFA day, which was one of the smoothest I've been involved with, in spite of the controversial topic. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think the rather fast work done by ToBeFree at the start helped a lot. Not just for handling that early disruptive editor, but also for the copy/paste notice we could use on a new editor's talk page just to gently remind them not to edit war, was very helpful. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I notice this article is already on Today's featured article/Most viewed from 11 April 2008, it would have been interesting to see it on that list twice, I certainly don't see any other articles listed on there twice. - Aoidh (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

BLP vio allegation
The well-vetted content you removed was not a BLP violation, nor was it thinly sourced. There are boatloads of mainstream sources discussing where JKR has been referred to as a TERF; here's but one easily found sample:. Your edit also left a grammatical error in the article; please self-revert. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Note I had already reverted this by the time you got this typed up and posted! Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest you may have reverted too far back; the edits before the article went live were not problematic, at least IMO. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Possibly, though I wasn't too sure about the edits by Wubslin and Kleinpecan, as they diverged pretty far from the FAR in some sections and I'd rather be overly cautious and re-do those after the TFA is finished. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note, per the section below the edits by Wubslin and Kleinpecan have both now been restored. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The topic of this thread is also under discussion at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Broader discussion of this text continues below at . Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Casual Vacancy
, the source you added here is not a high quality reliable source as required for Featured articles, and Casual Vacancy has its own article, where detail about it can be explored. Please review WP:FAOWN and the Featured article review linked above, and discuss further edits on talk. I suggest you self-revert. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Note, I've also reverted this by the time you'd typed this up and posted. Sorry . Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Slow and steady wins the race :) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

✅ Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

British English
regarding this edit (from a boy called Harry to a boy named Harry), had earlier changed that per British English. I don't speak British English; could others sort this? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  04:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh is it? My bad. To me that sounds odd but then again I'm not British so.... – zmbro (talk) (cont) 04:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have spent time in England, which I know is very weak supporting evidence, but it is my understanding that called is more commonly used there. I tried to find evidence online supporting this, but outside of forum posts, I could find nothing. However, Collins dictionary (which is a British English dictionary) and theFreeDictionary both state that called is the more commonly used word in this instance. With that in mind I think keeping it as called would be the best option. - Aoidh (talk) 05:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have spent 66 years in England, except for the years I didn't, and called is used more often than named, though either is acceptable. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 05:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am thinking of turning in for the night now; it sounds like we should go back to called, but not urgent, so we can wait for more opinions. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  06:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As a Brit, I would use "called" in speaking, not quite sure about in writing. Pam  D  06:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As Roxy has said, called is more common than named. --Wubslin (talk) 10:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

✅, (awake now and following). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  10:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Overlinking
in this edit, why did you delink fantasy literature (directly relevant in a literature article)? Also, could others opine on the delinking of pen name? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * While I could somewhat see value in delinking Gloustershire per OVERLINK, I don't agree with delinking fantasy in the infobox, fantasy literature, or pen name. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with Sideswipe. "Fantasy" and "pen name" are directly relevant to the subject and should be linked imho. Victoria (tk) 16:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement with Ss and Victoria; unless neveselbert weighs in shortly with a good reason, I suggest we restore the links. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I see no issue in restoring those links in lack of a response by Neveselbert. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

✅ Links restored, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Abbr template
in this edit, you introduced a template that removes the description of the acronym from the text. It is my understanding that this will leave text without a definition on sites that mirror Wikipedia content. It is also not available on all browsers. Also, we should never force a reader to click to understand a term. How to define the term was specially discussed in the FAR; I suggest restoring the original. I would understand using the Abbr template when acronyms are repeated throughout articles, but this is the first and only place where the acronym is used, so it should be defined in text. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Template:Abbr is intended for this exact usage, please see its documentation. Clicking through is not required, as hovering over the abbreviation will show a tooltip clarifying the full meaning of the abbreviation. If the user is using a screen reader, this template wraps the acronym in accessible tags, clarifying the acronym for the screen reading software.  Mel ma nn   23:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, this is about tech rather than the article subject, so I'll provide some information. HTML abbreviations are (currently?) not expanded in print. Hovering a mouse cursor is not a thing on mobile devices. The mere existence of a template for a specific intended purpose is not by itself an argument for using it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Because the abbr template is being used for text that is also a wikilink, even on desktop hovering the mouse pointer over it is problematic as Wikipedia by default provides a page preview for wikilinks for non-logged in readers. The template documentation states that this the template is not so useful on linked text, because the same tap that brings up the tooltip also follows the hyperlink to the destination page. As such, I think we're better off without it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Repeating myself and expanding: it is not viewable on all browsers which (if we are to believe the WMF data, means up to or more than half of our readers), and it won't mirror on sites that include Wikipedia content, which are many. It would make sense for repeated use of acronyms that are already spelled out on first occurrence; it is doing a disservice here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sandy here - using a template that reduces any mobile reader's ability to understand is not desirable. The fact that the template exists doesn't make usage mandatory. Hog Farm Talk 00:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

✅ reverted, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

"temp jobs"
Is there a reason this article uses an abbreviation of "temporary"? Is that consistently reflected in the literature? Otherwise, I am inclined to expand it for the sake of formal writing. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * To describe succinctly, it's a British English thing. Describing oneself as a "temp" or in a "temp job" was until recently, when it was replaced with zero hour contracts, just how we used the term here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We discussed this at length somewhere; give me a moment to find that. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Have a look here: Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 12. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * PS, thanks for asking :) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW, we also use "temp work(er)" in American English; it's just not an abbreviation I had assumed would be appropriate in formal written English. Interesting that there's some controversy over whether the abbreviation is itself meaningful; I agree you made the right choice, then. Thank you both, God bless. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, too ... so glad you asked before editing :) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've learned that wording choices that strike me as "obviously" wrong in TFAs have usually been discussed before. I always ask instead of being bold now. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Changing her to she, in sentence about Rowling's sister
in, you swapped the word "her" for "she" in the sentence about Rowling's younger sister. As someone whose native English variant is British English, I do not think this is correct. Ordinarily we would write "X is younger than him/her/them" rather than "X is younger than he/she/they". Could I convince you to self-revert this change? Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "I am younger than she "
 * "I am younger than her "
 * I've never heard of the grammatically awkward latter formation being a particular Britishism. Zaathras (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * True. But that sentence isn't in that first person descriptive form. The sentence is third person descriptive. Prior to the edit it read Joanne has a sister, Dianne, two years younger than her., now it reads Joanne has a sister, Dianne, two years younger than she. The former reads naturally to me, as it imparts that Joanne has a sister called Dianne, and that Dianne is two years younger than Joanne. The later does not. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Than can be used as either a conjunction or preposition. AFAIK both are correct. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Recast: Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The recast works for me. HowardMorland (talk) 02:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Who’s idea was it to have this be the featured article during pride month?
Apologies to the people in charge of the featured articles, but this is not good optics 50.29.253.217 (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think I agree. It would be hard for me to identify anyone else who has so successfully mobilized queer people (and others) in support of trans rights in online spaces - albeit as an unintended reaction. Newimpartial (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Besides agreeing with Newimpartial's point, TFA is scheduled based on community consensus, and those who take difference with the scheduling are well advised to start following WP:TFAR. The 25th anniversary  of Harry Potter was raised for TFA last February, and there has been considerable discussion of the blurb since (see links at the top of the page), with narry a soul raising an issue about pride month. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * June as pride month isn't an international occurrence — different countries celebrate it at different times. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * It's irrelevant, whether anybody is upset or not about the timing. The project doesn't run on a 'Don't offend anyone' basis, nor should it. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Our goal is to educate, and harm needs balanced with education. There are several Featured pictures that can't possibly run on the main page due to potential harms. See POTD/Unused. So it's not irrelevant. The relevant question is whether educational value outweighs potential harms. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 19:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We shall have to disagree, on the 'It offends people, so we can't do that' topic. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying we should never do it. I'm saying we have a duty to make sure educational value outweighs risk of harm. There are always potential harms. But trivial or unlikely harms are easily outweighed by the value of education. And not being overly conscious is a benefit too. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 20:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Political correctness, just isn't a good path to take. Anyways, Rowling's is an FA on the Main Page. So, what's done, is done. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Merely mentioning Rowling is not 'harming' anyone in even the loosest possible sense of that word.  Mel ma nn   23:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Social influencer, cancel culture
I was also able to access the (brand new, published yesterday) Google Book preview of the Schwirblat paper. Its focus is exclusively on influencers and cancel culture, and in her case, JKR's influence on social media. Its text could be useful in improving or replacing less scholarly sources at the introduction to the Views section, where we discuss how she uses social media to connect with fans. It might also be useful in upgrading some of our other less scholarly sources in the gender section, while saying the same things. I am hoping everyone will be able to access the article, and will have a look. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Replaced CNN with Schwirblat: Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Paragraphing in the lead
While this edit introduced only a paragraph break, such an edit can be construed as POV by breaching the WP:LEAD guideline to create a separate (short and stubby) paragraph to highlight one issue. Considerable consensus went in to building the lead; I have reverted that edit and left a message to. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

✅ Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ? lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい 00:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

, re your query on user talk, here is a list of all of the archived discussions from the Featured article review. The lead was the subject of a very well attended RFC, and was discussed on the FAR in talk archives 3 (items 5 and 6), 4 (item 16), and general discussion of the gender material is in archive 5. Not only was the RFC very well attended; the Featured article review for JKR was the best attended I have ever seen. Consensus on this article is very strong, and the person seeking to change it would need to make their case on talk. Also, WP:LEAD discusses paragraphing, and short stubby paras (particularly to set up a WP:STRUCTURE that is POV) are not good practice. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ok, fair. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい 00:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Not an improvement ( "famous for" )
✅, original text restored. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  11:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=1095320292 Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Wubslin edits
Per the request made at my talk page, could you elaborate on what the outright errors are please? For convenience here is a diff of all of your edits made that were rolled back. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I did not have an issue with any of those edits; how to reinstate them now, though ? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't be too difficult to do. Give me ten minutes and I should have em restored. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * apartment --> flat
 * British Royal Navy --> Royal Navy

were the two outright errors. The rest were just minor copyedits which I thought made the flow better. Thanks for your prompt attention, both of you. --Wubslin (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I've made by  except for one that I wanted to query first. In   you removed a sentence about Rowling's relationship with her father. Could you explain why? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah ha ... I had forgotten ... I also did not understand that one, except that the flow is a bit off. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note. I've also now restored the made by  after getting a chance to look at it in closer detail, and offered apologies over at her talk page. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * As regards, I was basing the removal on the fact that we have "Rowling's home life was complicated by her mother's illness and a strained relationship with her father" in the section just before, so there is probably no need to say "She had a difficult relationship with her father..." just a few lines later. Worth saying once, but not twice in quick succession. Does that make sense? Sorry, I should have done a better edit summary. --Wubslin (talk) 01:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, and do not disagree. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Cool. I'll restore that bit now then too. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * All good now, I think ? Thanks, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * . Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

✅, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  11:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

you can check Kirk out for free from archive.org by registering an account there ... the source does not say they changed their wedding venue to Mauritius ... they postponed their wedding, and changed their holiday plan. Your copyedit leaves the impression they changed the wedding venue to Mauritius. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I was trying to avoid "vacation", which sounds very odd in British English. Could we say "honeymoon"? Wubslin (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It wasn't their honeymoon ... it was just a trip before their later wedding in Scotland. In the US, holiday is ... a holiday (like Fourth of July, Christmas, Thanksgiving, etc), not a vacation (which does not have to occur over a holiday), so I am at a loss for how to fix this. My best suggestion, though, is that you begin by reading the source (p. 113 and a few pages before and after for context), as that may give you some ideas. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  09:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's a good way to resolve this. The source uses "holiday", which works in British English, even if it may prove slightly confusing for American readers. (I lived in the States for a few years, so I know this slightly confusing diversion between the two dialects. Hey, it's not as bad as fanny!) Part of the problem is there is no tradition in either culture of making a recreational journey as a couple prior to a marriage. Many would assume (as I did) that it would have been a honeymoon journey. Let me think about it some more. --Wubslin (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * in trying to avoid the redundancy of replacing the first vacation with holiday (which would result in two usages of holiday in two sentences), how about this:
 * Current: Rowling married Neil Murray, a doctor, in 2001.[5] The couple intended to marry that July in the Galapagos; after a leak to the press, they delayed their wedding plans and changed their vacation destination to Mauritius.[164] After the UK Press Complaints Commission ruled that a magazine had breached Jessica's privacy when the eight-year-old was included in a photograph of the family on holiday together,[165][166]
 * Suggestion: Rowling married Neil Murray, a doctor, in 2001.[5] The couple intended to marry that July in the Galapagos; after a leak to the press, they delayed their wedding plans and changed their holiday destination to Mauritius.[164] After the UK Press Complaints Commission ruled that a magazine had breached Jessica's privacy when the eight-year-old was included in a photograph of the family during that trip,[165][166]
 * Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Perfect! I'd add "taken" before the "during" just to make it clearer. --Wubslin (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'll leave that edit to you, then, as my edit count on this article already overstates my participation! Better to let you do the fix ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. As mentioned in my edit summary, as I was doing this I noticed and edited out the slight infelicity of using two sentences with "after" in close succession. --Wubslin (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

✅ looks good, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

"and she has been referred to as a TERF"
I'm certainly not trying to upset the apple cart right before it's on the main page (it's already there), and I know it took a lot of discussion to get to where it's at now, but when the article says "...and she has been referred to as a TERF..." would it perhaps be beneficial to say who has referred to her as such? With the current wording it's not really clear if this is just something that Twitter users have called her, or if some expert in some social field or something had said? I know the source cited just mentions her responding to such accusations and not who was doing the accusations, but is this something that was previously discussed or that can be sourced to specific people or groups? - Aoidh (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * this was discussed at length during the FAR at: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/J._K._Rowling/archive1/Archive_5 Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * For now, I have double-cited it: Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * She has been called that by various groups as mentioned on several sources-- enough that further specificity might not be helpful. Have you a suggested wording change we might discuss? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I know I'm probably being less than helpful in even bringing it up, but I only saw this and this as far as sources. I wasn't able to identify sources showing who said it so I don't have any suggested wording change. I didn't see in the FAR where the attribution of the term was discussed, but if it's been said by enough people that attribution isn't really helpful I'm certainly not trying to press the issue, I just thought it might help, but if it doesn't then I'm happy to drop the suggestion. - Aoidh (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Give me a moment to work something up :) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Looking at just a few sources: So just from that sampling, it seems widespread. Our text currently says: I'm at a loss for how to improve that; suggestions welcome. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This USA Today "splainer" refers to it generally, and indicates JKR herself suggested she had been called that:
 * NBC News says she referred to it herself:
 * Dave Chapelle says the "transgender community" call her a TERF.
 * The Independent refers to her reference to the term:
 * The Advocate outright calls her a TERF:
 * CNN says "critics" have called her a TERF:
 * The LA Times references her statement that she was called a TERF:
 * The Scotsman puts it on a Twitter trend:
 * Thanks so much for those sources, I didn't see those when I made this topic. But after reviewing the sources, it does look like it's not something that can be attributed to a person or group of people, the only suggestion I would make is possibly rewording it to so that way both the transphobic part and the TERF part are both attributed to critics? That way there is that attribution and acknowledgement of who is making those assertions, even if it's just the broad "critics"? - Aoidh (talk) 01:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources don't restrict it to only critics: Dave Chapelle proclaims he is "team TERF". Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, fair point. I really don't see anything I could suggest that would be an improvement then. - Aoidh (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for raising this; I've added now a scholarly source, and someone may come up with better wording because of your effort! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Reading through that source, I don't believe it supports the line; it says that Alice Schwarzer was branded a ’Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist’ (TERF), but it doesn't make such a statement about Rowling. BilledMammal (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the delay, ; it took me some time to figure out where I had stored the source. You are correct, I misread, and I will shortly self-revert. Thank you for noticing my error. The direct statement about Rowling is "storm of insults and death wishes" (hence my offer above that one option is to broaden the statement beyond just TERF). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Here are some other journal possibilities:
 * Gulley " As a result, Rowling was called a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) by many in the LGBTQIA+ community (Ivy 2019)."
 * I do not have access to this one: Thomsen ... anyone?
 * Vaitoska "Recently, the author of Harry Potter J. K. Rowling was called TERF – a mock- ing term meaning “trans-exclusionary radical feminist.” She was proclaimed such for supporting the opinion that sex change is biologically impossible."
 * I do not have access to this one: Schwirblat ... the preview shows it seems to support the text.
 * There are quite a few others I do not have access to; I believe it apparent that the statement can be cited to a scholarly source, but we should discuss which to use after closer examination. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The Thomsen, et al. paper doesn't have a single quote that supports it. Instead Rowling is mentioned as one of several anti-trans and TERF individuals named in a larger section titled "Kill the feminist, kill the lesbian".
 * The Schwirblat, et al. paper does not appear to have been published yet, as the publication date is 27 June 2022. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * So ... the Thomsen paper directly calls her a TERF by including her there ?? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've emailed you a copy of the Thomsen paper now. By my reading it does support it, but unlike the Gulley and Vaitoska papers it does not do so in an easy to quote manner. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm only able to see Gulley, who cites to this NBC News piece re TERF, (not sure if we have this one?). Victoria (tk) 15:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding: in fact the NBC opinion piece does not even mention the term anywhere, so Gulley has miscited or misattributed. I wouldn't use it. Victoria (tk) 15:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thx, and I have now viewed Thomsen, which I think not sufficient, so those two are out. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Had a closer look at the Vaitoska paper. It cites a Forbes piece from December 2019 for it, though upon closer inspection of the Forbes piece it seems to be from a Forbes contributor which we generally consider to be unreliable and a self published source, unless the contributor is a subject matter expert. I don't know enough about the author, Dawn Ennis, to tell if they are such an expert. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I think this should be removed. it's not appropriate for an article to list all of the slurs and insults that have been made about someone, even if it is proven that those slurs and insults have been made. Rowling's own essay is the ultimate source of many of those articles, where she says in full " I was transphobic, I was a cunt, a bitch, a TERF, " Should we add 'She has been referred to has a cunt, a bitch, and a TERF, characterisations she denies'? I don't think we should be using terms like 'TERF' in articles unless it's a label they accept for themselves; even if we try and weasel out of it by not using wiki-voice. JeffUK (talk) 10:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of numerous sources listing the other things she has been called, although if they do, an option is to replace TERF with something more general about the speech and threats directed at her, which scholarly sources do cover. I am satisfied with the use of TERF only. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  11:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * My concern is not verifiability. Reporting that an offensive slur has been used against someone is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia biography article without a very good reason to explore it in detail, more than anything it's WP:Undue Especially when the subject has vehemently denied the claim, and spoken out specifically about the chilling effects of that label.   JeffUK (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The "very good reason' is that a noted and so-called feminist turned out to hold views that are widely considered to be bigoted. Similarly, white supremacists don't like to be called white supremacists, they prefer identitarian. Personal opinions of the subjects in these cases is not relevant. Zaathras (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I see that what TERF stand for is spelled-out, but is there a reason why it isn't linked to TERF? Was this a conscious decision made? Zaathras (talk) 12:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Confused ... ?? ... it is linked? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Can confirm it is wikilinked. I've also checked the revisions shortly before the time Zaathras made their reply, and it seems to be linked in all of them. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I swear it wasn't yesterday, but it may have been the coloring of the link blending into the dark-mode background I have. All good. Zaathras (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The current wording seems ideal. Certainly no convincing arguments to change it here. –– FormalDude   talk   15:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As long as we're linking to the TERF article which explains the larger issues around the recently coined term I don't see the slur issue... Its common for an objective description to be described as a slur by those its directed against. If a white supremacist is adequately described as such by WP:RS but considers white supremacist to be a slur (most of them do) and instead wants to be called a "white identity activist" we're not going to honor their wishes. Not sure why we would treat this differently from any other form of bigotry. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Options on "referred to as a TERF"
Per the discussion above, we have several options: Please suggest ideas and preferences .... NOT A VOTE ! If we get sufficient or diverging opinions, then we can consider a survey. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Leave well enough alone based on source list above
 * 2) Add a scholarly source to the general statement
 * 3) Broaden the statement to encompass "storm of insults and death threats"
 * 4) Qualify the statement somehow (wording would be tricky)
 * Why do you feel 'Removing the phrase 'TERF' from the article is not even an option? JeffUK (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Removing it entirely leaves the content without context for her essay rebuttal, in which she clearly outlines that issue ... that is, IMO the best option should we opt to remove the term entirely is to replace it with something about the general insults aimed at her, so that context is supplied. That said, if others support it, we could certainly consider going that direction. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * But the context about her essay is already there, "LGBT charities and leading actors of the Wizarding World franchise condemned Rowling's comments; GLAAD called them "cruel" and "inaccurate". Rowling responded with an essay on her website" that paragraph stands alone perfectly fine without the subsequent paragraph. It would be even more inappropriate to just include a list of other insults that have been used against her.  It is undue weight and (again) in violation of WP:BLP specifically "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. " .  JeffUK (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am, for now, refraining from offering my own preference re how to address this, as I don't want to stifle further discussion. But the highest quality (scholarly) sources are what we should be basing text on in a featured article, and I've listed the wording used by several scholarly sources; you can deduce where I will likely come out based on that. Rowling has been broadly subject to insults and death threats; working that in would be non-trivial, and in the collaborative spirit in which this article's content has evolved, would likely involve discussions through several proposal iterations.  The method has served us well so far ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Including the phrase TERF was discussed at length during the FAR. Also I'd point out that consensus at the BLPN thread that you opened seems to be that including the term as used is not a BLP violation. Update The BLPN discussion has been  stating There is reasonable consensus both here and at the article that there is no BLPvio that would necessitate invoking WP:BLPRESTORE, so in the interest of not splitting discussion, I'm closing this to keep discussion on the talk page.  Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC) updated with closure of BLPN discussion Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Where should I be looking for the extensive discussion? TERF is mentioned 5 times on that page, 3 of which are quotes from the same snippet of text, There is exactly zero discussion about the appropriateness of the term. JeffUK (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is that we, and the article, are better served by looking forward rather than backwards. There are multiple ways to address this concern, and we have found on this page that collaborative discussion works. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. I just keep being clobbered with 'This has been discussed', 'the wording was agreed already'' and 'familiarize themselves with the history of the article wording to avoid rereading old ground' .  If this has been discussed at length in the past, I would like to read the arguments to save time. JeffUK (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , yes, agree with this. Re your list above, per number 4 - would it work to simply say she has been called a radical feminist and leave out the acronym? That gives context that I do think is needed. Victoria (tk) 18:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That is an option, but I am unsure it will gain consensus. My sense early on (could be wrong???) is that plenty of people would object to removing TERF and its link.  Also, we still have Wagner and Schwirblat; I wonder if anyone can decipher if Schwirblat will become available tomorrow?  Wagner's wording is "storm of insults and death wishes". Scholar.google coughs up many other sources I cannot access; perhaps someone with better access can, and we can initiate a discussion focused on scholarly sources?  I need to go out for about an hour and a half, but can iPad edit from the car hotspot ... slow and steady wins the race. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can leave out the trans-exclusionary part. It would be changing what our sources are saying, as Rowling is not being criticised for being a radical feminist. She's being criticsed for being a trans-exclusionary radical feminist. By dropping the acronym and trans-exclusionary, you're changing the group to which others are describing her being a part of.
 * if you want to email me the URLs to the other sources or link them here, I should be able to access most. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Gotta dash out or will be late ... just scholar.google TERF Rowling ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Will do, I'll get the relevant ones linked here shortly. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Take note that several were resoundingly rejected back during the discussion of sources on the FAR ... you may need to look that up first. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Eg, Hotine comes to mind as one that resulted in heated discussion ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yup, already come across Hotine's piece. I'll filter the list against the past discussion, plus the other four you linked earlier, once I find the most relevant ones. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. See section below. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources do not say that "Rowling is being criticised for being a trans-exclusionary radical feminist. " they say 'She's been called a TERF',  I think there is a subtle but important difference between the two,  and that the reported name-calling is just not due weight for the section on Rowling's views (or anywhere on her article).  That her views have been criticised for being transphobic is not in any doubt,  so 'transphobic' seems entirely appropriate. JeffUK (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * My current preference is first 1, leaving it alone, followed by 2 adding a scholarly source to the existing set of citations.
 * I do not think broadening it to include "storm of insults and death threats" is due as that doesn't seem to be reflected in the weight our sources give to that. I also don't think there's a way to succinctly qualify the statement, without repeating much of the content at Political views of J. K. Rowling. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please try to avoid early !voting, which never leads anywhere good :) As soon as I return from a quick errand, we should set up proposals in the same format that served us so well during the FAR (see User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox5). But we should first and foremost engage in broad-based discussion to be sure we all understand each other's concerns. Mine now is that we re-focus away from news sources, and on to scholarly sources. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks all. I was simply brainstorming. I agree w/ Sideswipe's comments. Discussion is always valuable and I think we've articulated why the entire acronym is needed. Victoria (tk) 18:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am on my way home, and will set up some structured proposals per Ss source list as soon as I get there. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd rather have the entire thing deleted. IMHO, it belongs in the Political views of J. K. Rowling page. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * She's being put on the main page in the middle of Pride. Not addressing her transphobic views at all is far, far worse. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 19:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

My preference is to leave it how it is. The statement is adequately sourced and neutrally worded. We aren't referring to Rowling as a TERF, merely remarking that she has been called one, which is hardly news to anyone. The main question I think is whether there is adequate weight to justify including the statement given that it is a negative characterization in a BLP. Sandy's list of sources makes me inclined to believe that there is adequate weight. Nosferattus (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Scholarly sources
A list of relevant scholarly sources describing Rowling as a TERF I've included a couple of sources that look like they might be relevant, but I was unable to access via LIB or other means in the hopes that someone else may have access. I've also included some inline notes and quotes, but I'd suggest that any further discussion should occur below the list to prevent issues of having to add my signature to every line. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * They would have transitioned me: third conditional TERF grammar of trans childhood, Jacob Breslow, open access
 * Note: source states why it calls Rowling an TERF in footnote 1.
 * Note: Source was discussed but not rejected during the FAR
 * This is my TERF! Lesbian Feminists and the Stigmatization of Trans Women, Meredith Worthen, closed access but available through WP:LIB
 * Quote: Relatively recently, social media has exploded with conversations about Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERFs) who are opposed to the recognition of trans women as women and instead, opt into sex essentialist beliefs that reinforce cisnormativity (Williams, 2014; Zanghellini, 2020). British author J.K. Rowling has been at the center of recent pop culture (and sometimes academic) discussions about trans exclusion due to her own comments and blog/essay in which she defends her stance on sex essentialism (Rowling, 2020).
 * Mainland China's TERFs' Misogyny under JK Rowling's Anti-trans Incident, Leshui Qiao, open access
 * Quote: JK Rowling's anti-trans incident has brought the existence of TERF (anti-trans radical feminists) to the surface again, and indeed in 2008 TERF sprouted on the internet [1] and further developed in 2014 [2].
 * Quote: This shows that Chinese netizens display an anti-political correctness stance when viewing the JK Rowling case, which makes the TERF ideology more convincing (they are more supportive of JK Rowling's views),
 * Transformative Readings: Harry Potter Fan Fiction, Trans/Queer Reader Response, and J. K. Rowling, Jennifer Duggan, open access
 * Note: while this source discusses extensively Rowling's transphobic views, it does not explicitly call her a TERF, and only mentions TERF as part of Rowling's June 2021 open letter.
 * Note: Source was discussed during the FAR, and is currently in use in the article
 * On J. K. Rowling's Discourse on Transsexual Issues, An Analysis of the Language Used on Rowling's Twitter and the Sociolinguistic Implication of Hate Speech, Amergio Quatrini
 * Note: this source is a linguistic analysis of statements made by and to Rowling, and does not seem to make any meta commentary on the comments themselves.
 * Toward a historiography of the lesbian transsexual, or the TERF’s nightmare, Jules Gill-Peterson, closed access, not in WP:LIB
 * Note: I'm unable to access this paper either through LIB or other means.
 * The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing, book, partial preview available on Google Books, relevant page 125-126
 * Quote: One of these is the TERF (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist) lable, originating from the belief of radical feminists that the problems of women can only be experienced by those who are born biologically as women. Thus, prominent figures such as J. K. Rowling and Germain Greer have argued for the exclusion of trans women from women's movements and networks (Brown, 2018; Ennis, 2019).
 * Not my turf: Helen Lewis argues that vitriol around the trans debate means only extreme voices are being heard, Jemimah Steinfeld, open access
 * Quote: The term Terf, first coined in 2008, has taken on a life of its own in recent years. Like a heat-seeking missile, it races through the internet at breakneck speed, ready to smash into anyone who says the “wrong” thing in reference to trans people. Just ask JK Rowling and other women who have been labelled as Terfs.
 * Note: this seems to be an interview published in the April 2020 issue of Index on Censorship's quarterly publication
 * Empire and Eugenics: Trans studies in the United Kingdom, Ezra Horbury, Christine "Xine" Yao, closed access, not in WP:LIB
 * Note: I'm unable to access this paper either through LIB or other means.


 * As per previous section above, I've excluded any sources that were discussed during the FAR (see Archive 3 and Archive 5 for past analysis), but I've included two that were discussed and not excluded. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Adding on: Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Quote: Her celebrity didn't spare her being vilified on Twitter for these remarks. It earned Rowling a storm of insults and death wishes, and resulted in her books being cleared from stock in several feminist bookstores.
 * Schwirblat
 * Note: not yet available (? publication date listed as June 27 ?) but Google excerpt is suggestive it could be useful: "… The purpose of this chapter is to explore three case studies (JK Rowling, Shane Gillis, and… -exclusionary radical feminist (TERF). During this time, Rowling was a trending hashtag with … "
 * Suissa & Sullivan
 * Note: in use now in article
 * Quote: Yet, we have been shocked by the outpouring of hatred directed at women, typically accompanied by the term ‘TERF’, effectively used as a replacement for epithets such as ‘witch’, ‘bitch’ or ‘cunt’ (see Cameron, 2016). The treatment of J.K. Rowling, subjected to a tidal wave of requests to ‘choke on a basket of dicks’ and similar, in response to a strikingly thoughtful and empathetic essay, is simply the highest profile case of a commonplace phenomenon (Leng, 2020; Rowling, 2020).
 * Quote: Yet, we have been shocked by the outpouring of hatred directed at women, typically accompanied by the term ‘TERF’, effectively used as a replacement for epithets such as ‘witch’, ‘bitch’ or ‘cunt’ (see Cameron, 2016). The treatment of J.K. Rowling, subjected to a tidal wave of requests to ‘choke on a basket of dicks’ and similar, in response to a strikingly thoughtful and empathetic essay, is simply the highest profile case of a commonplace phenomenon (Leng, 2020; Rowling, 2020).

Discussion of scholarly sources
Opening this section for feedback. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * were you able to access the Palgrave source that I remember seeing on my searches? From other Featured articles, I was given the impression that is a high quality source. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't recall seeing that one. But I'm also awful with names. I'll check my browser history when back at my pc. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is what I can see on the scholar.google preview:
 * Harry Potter as Philosophy: Five Types of Friendship JM Okapal - The Palgrave Handbook of Popular Culture as …, 2020 - Springer … Potter, a controversy arose regarding JK Rowling. This controversy was about her support … of her idols appeared to align with [TERF] ideology.” (Rosenblatt). Rowling’s views seem to be … Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Back at my PC now. That one did not show up in my search. I don't seem to be able to access the full text of that one, but I can see its citations. The Rosenblatt source is an article on NBC News. The other citations do not seem useful, aside from the 8 Potter films, only two are related to either the Potter works or Rowling; one is Rowling's 2020 open letter, and the other is a book titled "Harry potter and philosophy: If Aristotle ran Hogwarts" by David Baggett and Shawn E. Klein. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note, a Goole Book preview of the Schwirblat paper appeared shortly after midnight UK time. For me the preview included the entire paper by Schwirblat, and I've managed to grab a copy of it. As with the Quatrini source linked above, it does not seem to have much if any meta commentary on Rowling's comments, though from some subtle choice of words (particularly using transwomen instead of trans women) and the omission of the US/UK author/publisher open letters that were circulated around the same time as the 150 open letter signature open letter in support of Rowling leads me to suspect that the author is somewhat sympathetic to Rowling's commentary.
 * Most relevant quote is: This sparked a heated discussion within the Twitter community, one side buttressing Rowling's statements and the other espousing her as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF). Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Another that attributes the charge to Twitter ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ss9th, thank you for all the research you did yesterday. I am also able to access the full preview now, and have read it.  I'm not certain that the omission of other letters has any underlying meaning, as the article's focus is very specific. Likewise, I'm not sure certain subtle word usage has any meaning, as those (like me) who aren't In The Know necessarily may inadvertently make such choices.  There is a lot in this source that could be used to replace some of our newsy sources, without necessarily changing content, so I hope everyone will grab a look while the preview is available.  I'll start a new section below; still catching up today. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fair, and it's possible I'm seeing something that is unintentional. It can be hard to tell at times, particularly in media and/or scholarly pieces about culture war topics as there are folks who'll use that language unintentionally. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Had a thought last night, though haven't had time to investigate it further yet. If we're wanting meta-commentary on Rowling's tweets and open letters, contextualising it as part of broader anti-trans commentary from other prolific/prominent individuals, instead of reporting on it, we're probably best looking for research published in journals that have more of a focus on feminist issues.
 * If instead we're wanting research papers that are reporting on it, without making meta-commentary and judgements of the content, then journals similar to those that published the Quatrini and Schwirblat papers may be better.
 * That all said however, I'm not sure how many other sources exist that we haven't either already listed here, or discussed and dismissed previously during the FAR. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Regardless, a few months down the road, when we all have more energy, a new comprehensive survey of scholarly sources will probably be in order. We left several items on the FAR pending such a review, once there is more scholarly literature available, so for now, I am just looking at immediate needs and catching up on what was raised during the TFA.  Will get on Draft B after breakfast ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Other discussion
Oddly (???) I have just now been pointed to a discussion that was started at BLPN hours ago: see here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Notes on methodology
What worked well, I think, in the FAR discussions was that we avoided !voting on proposals, and focused on coming to consensus via discussion, expressing our concerns, additions, deletions, suggested edits without personalizing discussions. Nothing went in to the article until we had consensus. For those who weren't part of the FAR, that meant that we worked together through a series of proposals, systematically, to come to consensus: often it would take up to six draft proposals before we came to agreement on wording and sources, and it quite often was very hard and focused work. On that note, I will put up a first draft soon, but I suggest we are still working on the source discussion above, so the first draft will be very drafty. That is, if you don't like it, there is no need for alarm :) We are still missing some scholarly sources, and there is one that may be available tomorrow.  My sense of the discussions so far is that some insist that the term TERF stays, while others think it should go.  Most of the non-scholarly sources reference her use of the TERM, as do some of the scholarly sources, so I will attempt to account for that. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC) Edited: I think we have most of the sources listed above now. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of Draft A
A start. I've worked in several of the new scholarly sources. And multiple sources refer to the TERF term and others as being fueled by Twitter discussions. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * No issues with working in Twitter, but Breslow says that "the status of TERF as a slur is itself highly contested" and cites other papers. So we might want to avoid framing it as an insult in wikivoice. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Better?  Separating the TERF from the insults? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it still implies that TERF is an insult. And why are we including the Twitter bit at all? Name a celebrity that hasn't received insults fueled by Twitter. –– FormalDude   talk   01:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Because the original concern was that we needed to somehow attribute. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not really. As a sentence it flows worse to me. What if instead we append the new content on "insults" and "references to her" as a separate sentence? In situ this would read Rowling's statements have been deemed transphobic by critics and she has been referred to as a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist). She has received insults and references to her fuelled by Twitter discussions. She rejects these characterisations?
 * As an aside, I'm not fully sold on "references to her" as I'm not quite sure what those references are. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit too tired to pull together the next version; let's see what others might add ? Agree it's awkward ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's been a long day. I'll have a ponder on some alternatives, though I'm a better copy-editor than I am a wordsmith. Go get some rest and we can come at this afresh over the next few days. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * But if I were to work on Draft B, it might go like ...
 * Rowling's statements have been deemed transphobic by critics. She has received Twitter-fueled insults and threats. She rejects characterisations that she is transphobic and a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist).
 * With all the citations stuck in the right places ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I like that one! There's a small amount of repetition as "transphobic" is mentioned twice, but it seems unavoidable in order to keep the second sentence stand alone. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Glad you like it. Let's wake up tomorrow to find the good wordsmiths at work on Draft B; I am Just Too Tired (and not because of JKR, which has been a pleasurable experience-- way better than the uproar that occurred at WP:ERRORS over the lead image at Buruli ulcer  ) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * G'morning! Draft A was pretty poor; I was just too tired.  I will dig in on Draft B in a bit. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of Draft B
I've worked in the new scholarly sources. Concerns were that we provide some context/attribution for the TERF term. Some wanted to completely drop the TERF reference, but I don't see consensus for that. I've added Twitter-fueled for context, but then later, mentioned that the controversy moved beyond Twitter, so as to separate the "insults" to a different paragraph, and not imply that TERF is necessarily a slur. I believe we have enough scholarly sources to warrant due weight on inclusion of the TERF discussion, but had to also work in that the whole issue has contributed to debate around cancel culture. Proposed changes are highlighted in yellow; have at it. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I like the additions of cancel culture, due to the Schwirblat paper's release, and the rephrasing of "under fire" to the expanded "under scrutiny". I'm still not entirely convinced we need "in Twitter-fuelled discussions", but I'm not overtly opposed to it either. Definitely an improvement on Draft A! Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Wow this talk page section exploded, and I think the changes and discussion here have been excellent, and the in-text attribution of who is making those TERF statements is a wonderful addition and exactly what I was looking for but didn't have the context or sources to express. Regarding the highlighted draft above I think those are great improvements with the exception of the "in Twitter-fueled discussions" wording; it seems like that kind of downplays the critics and their complaints as just being limited to upset Twitter users, which arguably dismisses the concerns as you can find Twitter users decrying almost every celebrity about all sorts of things. - Aoidh (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * your comment confuses me. On the one hand, you laud "in-text attribution of who is making these statements", yet at the same time, you want that same text (Twitter-fueled discussions) taken out ... it started on Twitter, which fueled discussion that, as stated in the next paragraph, moved beyond Twitter. Multiple sources inidicate the controversy started on Twitter; I don't how else to provide the in-text attribution you seek. Twitter-fueled only means it started and was fueled there. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think maybe something like "and she has been referred to as a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) in response to her comments on Twitter" or something might be an improvement, since the catalyst there is what she herself said/retweeted on Twitter, not necessarily any Twitter-based response. Specifying that it was her comments on Twitter seems more clear as to what on Twitter fueled the discussion rather than simply saying Twitter-fueled. - Aoidh (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see; yes, I think that will work. Will see what others say. Thanks! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note to self: if that change is made, page range on Schwirblat source becomes 367 to 368 ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah I like that. Rowling's commentary is almost always on Twitter, but the response to it isn't. That change better represents the dichotomy between Rowling's commentary and the responses to it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Will move that in to the Draft now then for others to comment. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Draft B looks good, . I've read Swirblat. Interesting. Victoria (tk) 23:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I will install this after breakfast in the a.m. unless someone has an issue. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  12:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Installed, cumulative diff, pls check! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks great! Thank you so much for your hard work! - Aoidh (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Very nice. Huge thanks to everyone for all the hard work. Victoria (tk) 16:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Seeing as the topic wasn't put in the opening paragraph? I'm quite content. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Last sentence of the lead
It currently reads: These have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists and individuals.

I propose changing to: These have been criticised as transphobic by some LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists and individuals.

The current wording implies "LGBT rights organisations" as a group condemn Rowling's comments. Surely we would need a very good source for such strong wording. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It is adequately sourced in the body text, and not required to be cited in the lead, which is a summary of the body. -Roxy the bad tempered dog 13:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, none of the sources say she has been called transphobic by a majority of "LGBT rights organisations". This is why I want to qualify the statement with "some". 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The WP:WEASEL word "some" is used in the transgender section of the article, and I personally would not support using it in the lead, which is well crafted. -Roxy the bad tempered dog 13:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If the qualification is included in the body, why is it not appropriate in the lead? 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * because it is a summary. - Roxy the bad tempered dog 13:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You haven't addressed my point. The current wording gives a misleading impression of a consensus against Rowling from "LGBT rights organisations". 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's see what others say, shall we. I have addressed your point though. Things will be omitted from a summary, that is the point of summarising. - Roxy the bad tempered dog 14:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Another possibility: These have been criticised as transphobic by some LGBT rights organisations and feminists, but have received support from other feminists and individuals. -- Just as concise as the current wording, and it more accurately summarises the body 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Do we need a headcount of how many LGBT rights organizations have condemned Rowling's transphobia? What number is the tipping point, where you'd drop the call for "some" ? Zaathras (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We'd need sources saying something along the lines of: "a majority of LGBT rights organisations have condemned R's comments" or "LGBT rights organisations have banded together in condemning R's comments -- some kind of collective language which suggests there is a consensus or majority opinion among "LGBT rights organizations". It's not up to us to make a headcount. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Are you aware of a recognized or major LGBT org that did not condemn Rowling? At any rate, considering the lead was subjected to a recent and extremely well attended RFC, it is unlikely that sentence will be changed without very strong consensus, or possibly a new RFC which should only be launched after carefully crafting the wording, as discussed on the FAR, to avoid another no consensus outcome. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Some editors may be under the impression that the LGB Alliance is in some sense an LGBT rights organization, in the sense of this paragraph. It is not. Newimpartial (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at the article as it stands, the only reference to the LGB Alliance is in a cite which makes it clear that they're a bunch of transphobes, so at least that's not a problem as it stands. Black Kite (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As long as none of this topic is in the opening paragraph? I'm content. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Serial commas
please stop installing serial commas and discuss on talk; there were covered at length in the recent FAR. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * My bad, I did not stop with one only because I saw your revert later and I had no idea this was already discussed. Can you please link me to the discussion? Because if you meant "Not an improvement", that seems to be mainly about semi-colons. While the rest of my edits were serial commas, only one was a semi-colon "Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Eddie Redmayne, and others expressed support for the transgender community in reaction to Rowling's comments; Ralph Fiennes supported Rowling." This is only made more weird by the fact semi-colons are used for "Her statements have divided feminists; fuelled debates on freedom of speech, academic freedom and cancel culture;[413] and prompted support for transgender people from the literary, arts and culture sectors." So I thought that was fine.
 * While the section I edited was mostly without serial commas, there is still no consistency on commas, as the note in that same section—"The UK laws and proposed changes are the Gender Recognition Act 2004, the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, and the related Equality Act 2010"—includes a serial comma that I have not added. Finally, other minor edits including moving refs that looked weird being in the middle of a sentence, such as "Rowling mocked an article[422] for using the phrase 'people who menstruate', and tweeted that women's rights and 'lived reality' would be 'erased' if 'sex isn't real'." to "Rowling mocked an article for using the phrase 'people who menstruate',[422] and tweeted that women's rights and 'lived reality' would be 'erased' if 'sex isn't real'." Or changed links like domestic abuse ---> to working WP:REDIRECT domestic abuse and avoided use of _ in another link. Davide King (talk) 14:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * it looks like we talked about it in this FAR section but didn't get much further than an acknowledgment of the issue. There's also a passing mention of the problem in Archive 5. I think we never decided whether to use them or not. I couldn't find mention in the other archives, having searched for "Oxford" and "serial". I support the ref move and am neutral on the link change. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for digging in here, Firefangledfeathers; I found the post difficult to decipher, and wasn't sure how it reflected the actual edits (I also was exhausted at that point). In a controversial article like this, I am in favor of leaving the citations attached to the specific text they cite and not grouping them all at the end of a sentence for two reasons as in this example.  The specific word mocked came from one source, and we are/were at that level of discussion in building consensus.  And grouping three citations at the end of a sentence starts to look like WP:CITATIONOVERKILL; one citation applies to one specific word chosen, and IMO best left that way, as that's how we hammered out consensus.  I fixed the serial comma that was missed because its in a footnote.  I moved the domestic violence link to its first occurrence, and otherwise don't understand the issue there.  Because we had people complaining about serial commas, there were several copyedit passes to fix them; if some were fixed, we should address that, or seek new consensus. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * SandyGeorgia, Davide King's proposal doesn't move the citation to the end of the sentence, but to the middle, where it would be the only citation. On serial commas, the article uses them ubiquitously. The lead, for example, uses them ubiquitously. If we didn't create a consensus as part of the FAR, it's ripe for discussion now. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * But can we get (enough) people to re-engage? I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, but understand and respect the concern of those who do. In other words, I don't really care. Ah, now I see what you (both) mean about moving that citation, and will do that next. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Done, and my apologies to for not following this thread closely enough; at the time it appeared, I was exhausted (not by JKR, rather real life stuff going on). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Awards section
I feel the Awards section has a rather formulaic tone, and the conflation of the "Other works (film, theatre and non-HP)" into one, catch-all, miscellaneous section at the end, only labelled as such by an invisible note, jars somewhat. Not just that it breaks chronological order in an unannounced way, but it leaves the article vulnerable to looking like it is talking up the subject's post-HP career by bundling the film awards (which were closely related to the books) with a single Cormoran Strike award in 2021, introduced by the highly-misleading statement in Wikipedia's voice that "Rowling's other works have also received recognition." If we mean the films of the books as "other works" beyond the books, that is a bit of a stretch. The films could not exist but for the books. If we mean her post-Harry Potter career has been as successful as her HP career, I don't think so. The main challenge articles like this face is the danger of looking like they were written by fans. That's what this is triggering in me, slightly. What can be done to make this better? --Wubslin (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The section is organized by theme, not chronology: the academic, career and literary awards all overlap in time, and so I don't see how graf 4 is different in that respect. (The goal is to summarize the more extensive daughter article's sections; here's the FAR discussion where we decided what to cut and how to organize.) The theme intended to convey in graf 4 is that Rowling's activities here are quite different from the earlier grafs: her only credited role for the HP films is as a producer for Deathly Hallows and she shared its BAFTA in that capacity; she also branched out into crime fiction and received an award for it. A more tailored topic sentence might be: "Rowling has also received awards for film, theatre and for crime fiction". How does that look? Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * That would certainly be better. I suppose the bit I am still uneasy with is the appearance of synthesis in the topic sentence of that paragraph. Having read the article I have the definite impression that Rowling's best days as an author are probably behind her, and the topic sentence of this section almost reads as if someone was trying out the idea that Cormoran Strike has been as successful as Harry Potter was, which jars with the (I think fair) depiction in the rest of the article, as the author of this phenomenal series of children's books about a boy wizard, who is more known nowadays as a controversial figure on Twitter. The daughter article doesn't combine the other awards in this way. I'm about to check out the linked discussion to see if I get any other ideas. Thanks for that. --Wubslin (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * My feeling after skimming that (thanks again for the link) is that section could be greatly slimmed down and made chronological. Readers could check out the daughter article for details of the Spanish Prince of Asturias Award for Concord, the James Joyce Award and the minor honorary degrees. The article would be more useful to the general reader with just the really important ones here, I think. That's how a summary is supposed to work, and from my reading of that discussion, that's why the daughter article was split off. Let it do its job. On an unrelated note, I am troubled by "In 2000, Prisoner of Azkaban was nominated for the Whitbread Book of the Year where it competed against a book by a Nobel prize laureate." Would it be possible to name the laureate? --Wubslin (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It was Seamus Heaney's Beowulf translation (a.k.a Heaneywulf, officially) - added. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

O-D, could the Prisoner of Azkaban cash prize scandal be moved to the end of that first para, after the awards she won, so that we get first the positive, and then the problem with the cash prize? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Final comment for now: "Harry Potter and the Cursed Child won a record-breaking number of Laurence Olivier Awards in 2017." As far as I can see, none of these awards were for Rowling as a co-writer, but I had to check because the article currently mentions this, rather misleadingly, under a heading which implies that the awards were given to her. "Rowling has also received awards for film, theatre and crime fiction". Your new topic sentence would also fall foul of this. Again, the appearance of boosterism is there. It would be easy to tone this down. See what you think. --Wubslin (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm that's a good point, and I don't recall adding the record for Olivier here. In the FL I included only one Olivier award, "Best New Play", for Rowling because she shares story credit and the award announcement doesn't call out any specific person. I'd trim the current sentence down to just that one. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @SG: It's on top because it's the one award all sources seem to mention. Another way to order it and retain a theme might be to have the children's lit awards first (books 1, 2), then the children's vs adult controversy (book 3), then the adult awards (book 4 to 7) - here it would be in the middle. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I took another hack at it. It would definitely be possible to haggle over one or two of the minor prizes (Time person of the year runner-up?) but I think especially since we have the daughter article, it's good to keep this to the really big ones. Be grateful for your opinion. --Wubslin (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The edit removed a few topic sentences/signposts, which I don’t agree with – see WP:RECEPTION, which the section was based on, for the rationale. Regarding the awards that were removed, I think the ones cited to Pugh, a scholarly source, shouldn’t go. Someone in the FAR (?) noted that Pugh talks about her philanthropy and academic awards in addition to literature, and the section was meant to follow this (Asturias, I believe, was suggested in the FAR discussion as it is a philanthropy award). Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 03:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with removing awards cited to Pugh, and I recommend following the methodology used above in for proposing sweeping changes; it allows everyone to opine towards improvement without the need for reverts. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  10:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting essay, which I hadn't seen before. Sandy, I had a whole section drafted for the talk page, copying your formatting from above, but I couldn't get it to work properly, and eventually it was getting late, so I just bunged it into the article. I fully recognise the value of consensus-building, and I'll be more careful the next time. My talk page post which I never posted contained a section acknowledging in general how collegial folks here have been, and specifically the work already done by User:Olivaw-Daneel to address my comments on this section. I'll post later about why I don't think the topic sentences recommended in the essay always lead to a good outcome; basically, there's the risk of (the appearance of) synthesis, as I mentioned above, and as acknowledged in the essay. There are very few style recommendations that work all the time. I stand by my strong feeling expressed above that these sections are far better being short than long. A list article can be comprehensive; a top-level article should be a summary with just the edited highlights. Nevertheless, I'll self-revert while we figure it out. --Wubslin (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I also agree that the RECEPTION essay isn't always spot on, and hope we can come to agreement on this section now at a slower pace. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Am busy IRL today but will come up with a draft in a bit. I had no issues with some of the changes such as removal of Time Person of the Year runner-up, and copyedits. For the last graf, something as simple as "Her other awards include" would work for flow. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Slow and steady wins the race; thanks Wubslin for all your contributions, and we'll get this done. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You're most welcome, and thanks again. I will try to put up a table here, so we could do a side by side comparison. --Wubslin (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of draft A
I've done my best, and it seems to have worked, more or less. This trim is radical, but I think it leaves the article in a better place. Less is more. --Wubslin (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * You are becoming quite the experienced editor :) I've expanded the section heading, and am out for the evening ... will weigh in after O-D has a look.  Thanks for all you've contributed here! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Huh, Ctrl C Ctrl V really, and not being as ham-fisted and impatient as I was last night. I just copied your table and entered my own data. I had already registered what you did above as an excellent way to compare versions, so I owe you. It's been an absolute pleasure. And it's quite an achievement for you guys to get this article as good as it is on such a relatively controversial subject. Well done! --Wubslin (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Here's a suggestion we might be able to agree on: this section should reflect what is in the best sources (scholarly bios of Rowling). So I wouldn't remove awards that Pugh thinks are worthy of mention (para 3). By the same token, awards not cited to scholars are expendable, so I think the Time POTY removal is fine. (Also, length was brought up, so here's a benchmark: Pugh spends roughly 1 page on awards in 20-page bio on Rowling. We're in the same ballpark here, so I'm not concerned about size. Of course, concision in prose, better organization, etc are welcome.) Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * A quote from Pugh: Numerous educational institutions, including [...], have awarded her honorary degrees. This was the opening of para 3 in the current version, but was cut; perhaps it wasn't clear that it was cited? Open to suggestions for rephrasing. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 06:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I applaud any attempt to trim text, but am preferring several parts of the current vs. the Draft:
 * The current doesn't have the problem of starting with awards ... awarded
 * Not everyone knows the Whitbread is a cash prize, so I liked that clarification in the current
 * The current spells out that she attended Exeter, which the reader may not know (many readers, if we are to believe the WMF, don't read the entire article, rather skip to specific sections they want to read ... I'm OK with a redundancy this far separated from its first mention ... perhaps it could be switch to "her alma mater Exeter"??)
 * Dropping Time and Principe de Asturias Concord has two problems: it leaves the awards mentioned being predominantly British, when she has been recognized outside of British awards, and it drops the two biggest awards that have to do with more than literature, leaving out an important part of her recognition.
 * Not saying we can't attempt a trim, but concerned that we are losing important bits here that demonstrate the breadth of awards (more than British, more than literature). For example, why not drop Freedom of the City instead of Time and Principe if something has to be trimmed ? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  11:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * A few replies: is the strict adherence to Pugh really such an overriding priority? My draft does indeed have "her alma mater, the University of Exeter" which I agree is better. We could even link alma mater if that makes it clearer. I agree with dropping the Freedoms of cities; in a way it would be more noteworthy if she hadn't received these. My suggestion would be as a criterion for inclusion here, will historians in 50 or a hundred years time think these were important events in her life? As I've said, any one or two of these could be haggled over, but we should avoid the appearance of a complete listing here, as that is the job of the daughter article. I'll post more later. --Wubslin (talk) 11:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I missed the alma mater. Your logic is reasonable; I'd like to keep either Time or Principe so the list isn't almost exclusively British, and goes outside of literature. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think our personal opinions on inclusion criteria should override that of scholars, generally: what Pugh (or Nel or Whited) feel is noteworthy is something we should give weight. For the remaining awards, I agree with Sandy on the British vs international argument. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Further reply to come; I just wanted to point out that I made some adjustments to my proposal, which remove the clumsy repetition of "award" that Sandy pointed out. --Wubslin (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Got it. I'm a bit swamped IRL, so O-D, waiting for explicit from you ... maybe a Draft B?  Not sure where we stand, attention span a bit frayed here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, that sounds like a good idea. I will put up a draft B after Wubslin is done with their comments (and I don't mean to rush you in any way; no deadline here). I'm sure we can converge on a version everyone agrees on. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That sounds great. I'll continue to tinker with this draft then? --Wubslin (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ended up adding draft B above. I removed images so that its easier to compare, and updated the section headings. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 04:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of draft B
Please see draft B above – 28 words more than draft A. I added Asturias and info from Pugh; removed Freedom of the City of London. Made some prose changes so that we don't have too many sentences starting with "she", and I modified "worth half as much" (as the "worth" of an award could mean either cash or prestige). Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 04:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)


 * It works for me. (I'm assuming we have Freedom of the City over in the sub-article.) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  05:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep we do. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 05:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I like it! I'm not wild about Asturias, but it's a creditable improvement on what we have. It reads as natural prose and has lost the formulaic flavour it had. --Wubslin (talk) 11:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Leaving install to ... O-D? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Diff, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

"better known as"
Re this edit, pet peeve alert. We frequently see the phrase "best known for" in the leads of Wikipedia articles, and that can almost never be sourced. Yes, we may all know it, but it's not sourced and rarely can be. Why do we need this change? Even if we can source it in this case, it leaves a bad example for other articles. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, she is better known by her pen name. Thus the name of the bio article itself. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with it. She is better known as JK Rowling. I don't think a source is required per WP:BLUESKY. — Czello 19:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

, unsure if this should have been reverted ?? See discussion above, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I share your pet peeve so it's two pro, two against, for better known as. A third option is simply known as, without better. Fwiw WP:BLUESKY is an essay. My view is that anyone who wants to change anything in the lede has a strong WP:BURDEN to justify the change since it's been worked over in such minute detail. I don't see that burden satisfied here. But of course the sky will not fall if the text reads better known as, or whatever. So: I prefer the status quo, don't see a great argument to change it, and think the burden lies with those who want to—but will not make any further fuss if others prefer something else. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object to the "known as" option in this case ... that's meeting halfway. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That seems fine to me. (Sidenote: weirdly, the CH, OBE, etc are not under her true name or pen name; they use "Joanne Kathleen" .) Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ha, interesting! I wonder whether that reflects a preference on her part (e.g. she told them to use that) or an error on their part (simply assuming that was her full name). -sche (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)